A very simple and easy to understand explanation of why climate change is REAL.

Single measurements can be validated against other single measurements as long as they are taken at the same time. That happened. I posted the documentation that proves it. The entirety of the technique a dataset uses can be validated using a different dataset as long as there is overlap in the time periods. That is a fact. And it's a concept that's used ubiquitously in all sciences.

But let's cut to the chase here. Is this yet another line of evidence that you wholesale deny?

If so is there any dataset, any dataset at all, in the climate sciences that you feel is worthy of drawing conclusions from?

 

I responded to a survey some years ago. As a result of that survey, I am part of the legendary 97%. Just about anyone is who believes man affects the weather..

Man obviously affects the weather. You would have to be a fool to believe otherwise.

Man either increases or decreases global temperatures. There is no way he can cool the atmosphere, therefore he is most likely contributing to global warming..

Global temperatures have either increased or decreased.depending what time period you choose.

The climate change alarmists tell us that world temperateness will increase by 4C by the end of the century. So far, the climate change alarmists have been wrong on just about every single prediction. I have no confidence that they will be any more accurate with this one.

In the meantime, I would like to see more renewable energy, but at a economical pace. I love to see those windmills turning as I drive across Kansas.

 

Going at me personally is different from this forum being a soapbox conservative cesspool.

 

The IPCC projections get trashed a lot, but they were pretty open ended. Multiple ranges, multiple emissions scenarios. It seems like difficulty projecting just a few things, like emissions and ENSO cycles, accounts for most of the discrepancy.

Interesting if you are one of the “97%.” Of course anyone familiar with the research on this subject knows that paper is not the only one of its kind. There have been many surveys. All are meaningful, assuming you know the parameters of what and who they are asking. In general, it seems like you have about 80-98% agreement among scientists that anthropogenic global warming exists. The main caveat is that those who are most qualified and have the most relevant expertise skew towards the high end (compared to say, geologists.)

Out of curiosity, how much warming for a doubling of CO2 is supported by data?

 

Now I know who reported me. And on my part it was completely innocent. No malice at all.

This forum has plenty of Democrats posting their trash talk.

 

I am no fan of horse racing but I believe there is more accuracy on their daily betting sheets than we get from the IPCC. What do you think the beef was between Dr. Richard Lindzen and the IPCC? I know since he e mailed me. He was upset over how science was treated and rejected the outcomes said by the politicians who crafted the IPCC reports. Most assume scientists issued the report. It was politicians.

 

Do you actually think I reported you?

Out of all the harassment towards me you think you're special?

 

Aerosols have a cooling effect. Humans produce a lot of aerosols. If we could suddenly stop all greenhouse emissions and only those emissions then the Earth would eventually begin to cool...anthroprogenically.

But, the global mean temperature has indisputably increased since 1960 which is about the time in which the anthroprogenic influences really began ramping up.

Here is a brief list of things climate scientists predicted and which are observed today.

The troposphere will warm.
The stratosphere will cool.
The diurnal temperature range will decrease.
The warming will be more pronounced at the poles as opposed to the equator.
The warming will be more pronounced at night as opposed to the day.
Water vapor mixing ratios will increase.
Oceanic heat content will increase.
Sea ice extents will decrease especially in the Arctic region.
Total ice volume from glaciers will decrease.
Sea levels will rise.


Also, you can see how computer models compare to actual observations. The predictions certainly aren't perfect. But, they are useful.

 

I believe man has a very small influence. Our influence is dwarfed by natural forces. I have virtually no confidence in the ability to forecast changes.

I would like to see the end of fossil fuels. However, I would like ti done for economic reasons rather crash programs to end it. We seem to be getting there at a relatively slow rate. However, that rate appears to be increasing.

All very general predictions with no specific time periods with no specific verification.

The aerosols were created using processes that consumed energy. The net result is warming.

 

And like my friend there, cars don't exist for you either.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

I love those graphs. Cut off a major part of it so that the changes are magnified.

Personally, I would like to see the end of fossil fuels. I have driven smaller cars for the past sixty five years. I have always thought driving around in an SUV mostly empty was a bit stupid. I have most likely done more for the elimination of CO2 than the majority of those on the left. Plus our forty plus acres has over 20,000 trees sucking up that CO2 like big old sponges.

 

Graphs by NASA.

 

I have worked with NASA. If you believe they are non-political, you are severely mistaken.

 

There's always something threatening an end to the world and the human race that is "real".

During my life, there has been nuclear anihilation, the population bomb, and enough others to immortalize the cartoon character holding a sign stating "The world will end today (or tomorrow, or next week).

Until there is enough proven science out there to prove the climate change theory, I will consider it a left wing ruse to limit my access to fuel and electricity.

 

Research that supports this position is few and far between. The fact is that there is an abundance of evidence that says the anthroprogenic influence is dominating over natural influences.

Let me ask you this...what natural process or set of natural processes explains the warming we observe today?

 

What man made processes explains the warming in the past? Our temperatures have been going up and down for the last five hundred thousand years at least. Where we are today has been duplicated on a regular basis numerous times.

 

Do cars exist?

 

That's easy. None.

That is correct. However, you are affirming a disjunct with this argument. Just because humans were not influencing the climate in the past does not preclude humans from doing so now. The best analogy I can give is this. Just because humans did not cause wildfires in the past does not mean we are not responsible for them today.

Also, and I'm just curious, how do you know the temperature has been going up and down for the last 500,000+ years? Who told you this?

 

I said initially that man has had an influence. I have doubts about the accuracy of their forecasts.

There are numerous sources which shows variations in temperatures over many thousands of years.

 

Milankovitch cycles, changes in solar irradiance, particulate matter, aerosols, and greenhouse gases mostly. Now guess which one of these has changed most drastically in recent times.

 

The average winter temperature at the north pole is about -44 degrees. Now how much do you think is hurt by 2 more degrees? Water changes to ice at +32 degrees.

 

I'm not talking about forecasts though...at least not yet. Something is causing the warming we see today. Most of the warming prior to 1900 can be explained by natural processes only. The warming from 1900 to 1950 again is largely natural, but during this period the natural-only explanations don't quite add up. This is the transition period in which the anthroprogenic influencing began ramping up. After 1950 there is a wild divergence between the leading natural-only explanations and what is actually happening. However, theories that utilize the net effect of both natural and anthroprogenic influences actually do explain the warming reasonably well. Once you remove the anthroprogenic influence from consideration the numbers don't add up anymore.

 

Only, if you believe the accuracy of the effect. That is where I have my doubts. There was a very repetitive pattern. It is only if you put absolute faith in the man made influence that the repetitive pattern becomes questionable. My nature rebels at that type of logic.

 

Well, if you’re talking Fahrenheit, it’s 3.6 degrees of warming that we are trying to avoid. Although that isn’t the most that we could see. For the record, 9 degrees C of cooling would bring us into ice age territory.

 

And keep in mind that the Arctic is warming at 2.5x the rate of the global mean. So if the global mean increases by +3.6C then the Arctic region will be more like +9.0C.